Knockback & mulitiple attacks

[mlangsdorf]

I feel if a successful Dodge + Retreat on the defender's part doesn't automatically cancel all of the attacker's additional attacks in the same turn, there's no reason that Knockback would put the defender out of reach. Assess the effects of knockback AFTER the attack resolves all the attacks.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I feel if a successful Dodge + Retreat on the defender's part doesn't automatically cancel all of the attacker's additional attacks in the same turn, there's no reason that Knockback would put the defender out of reach. Assess the effects of knockback AFTER the attack resolves all the attacks.

This. Whatever the literal reading of knockback rules is, in my games, I'd allow doing all the attacks first and applying all knockback later. After all, even a speedster with Basic Move 500 cannot Retreat fast enough to avoid having to roll Dodge against attacks after the first (and second, and third), so a knockback effect that likely has a lower speed shouldn't either.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I feel if a successful Dodge + Retreat on the defender's part doesn't automatically cancel all of the attacker's additional attacks in the same turn, there's no reason that Knockback would put the defender out of reach. Assess the effects of knockback AFTER the attack resolves all the attacks.

Dodge+Retreat is limited to ONE step. The distance from a knockback is variable and could lead to knocking the target down. Besides, there is no reason to think that the rule from the result from damage should be the same as an active defense.

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Dodge+Retreat is limited to ONE step. The distance from a knockback is variable and could lead to knocking the target down. Besides, there is no reason to think that the rule from the result from damage should be the same as an active defense.

I agree. Also, if the target is knocked down, then shouldn't that happen imedeatly? The attacker would then get bonuses to the rest of the attacks.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Tinman

I agree. Also, if the target is knocked down, then shouldn't that happen imedeatly? The attacker would then get bonuses to the rest of the attacks.

I agree with this observation.

On the same train of thought, those PCs with Extra Attack have been able to see the effects of the damage of their first attack (i.e. did they kill the first badguy) before launching their second attack.

Now I was in an arena game where just this sort of thing happened. A huge Ogre type decided to reign down a 5 strike Rapid Strike combo on my lightly armored fencer. The first blow has so much knockback that I flew off the arena floor. I was out of the fight, but I wasn't killed...which was the Ogre PCs goal. He wasn't able to finish the rest of the attacks because he couldn't reach me...even with trading attacks for steps. The Ogre player was mad. So a thread was posted here and, IIRC, Kromm said that yes it would play out the way it did, but that fighters should be able to reduce strength behind blows to reduce knockback...at least, I think that was his response.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Now I was in an arena game where just this sort of thing happened. A huge Ogre type decided to reign down a 5 strike Rapid Strike combo on my lightly armored fencer. The first blow has so much knockback that I flew off the arena floor. I was out of the fight, but I wasn't killed...which was the Ogre PCs goal. He wasn't able to finish the rest of the attacks because he couldn't reach me...even with trading attacks for steps. The Ogre player was mad. So a thread was posted here and, IIRC, Kromm said that yes it would play out the way it did, but that fighters should be able to reduce strength behind blows to reduce knockback...at least, I think that was his response.

I feel that a combatant should be able to control the angle of his blows in such a way that they knock the opponent up or to the side instead of back. This would be harder, reducing skill and/or damage of the attacks, but should prevent a light target from being knocked out of range by the first blow.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I feel that a combatant should be able to control the angle of his blows in such a way that they knock the opponent up or to the side instead of back. This would be harder, reducing skill and/or damage of the attacks, but should prevent a light target from being knocked out of range by the first blow.

I would think that would necessitate doing less damage. I mean, my impaling attacks never result in knockback...but if a big brute of a beefbot with a giant Maul hits me for 30hp...I don't see how I'm not going to be knocked back from that. If the beefbot wants to hit me twice with the big Maul, I'd think he'd have to pull his punches.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I would think that would necessitate doing less damage. I mean, my impaling attacks never result in knockback...but if a big brute of a beefbot with a giant Maul hits me for 30hp...I don't see how I'm not going to be knocked back from that. If the beefbot wants to hit me twice with the big Maul, I'd think he'd have to pull his punches.

Sure, but if he also struck you downward instead of head-on, that shoud further reduce the amount of knockback inflicted in relation to the damage. Such attacks are sub-optimal (hence getting a to-hit and damage penalty) but should give a higher knockback reduction than just pulling your punches. For example, a normal hit might deal 20 damage, causing 2 yards of knockback on a ST 10 target. He throws a reduced knockback attack, dealing 16 damage instead, but also causing only half the normal knockback (1 yard instead of 2), keeping you in range of his following attack. Think of it as adding a lesser version of No Knockback to your melee attacks.

This does bring up another way to mitigate knockback - Imbuements. It feels strange to spend FP to remove a "feature" of an attack, but it's certainly possible to do it that way.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Sure, but if he also struck you downward instead of head-on, that shoud further reduce the amount of knockback inflicted in relation to the damage. Such attacks are sub-optimal (hence getting a to-hit and damage penalty) but should give a higher knockback reduction than just pulling your punches. For example, a normal hit might deal 20 damage, causing 2 yards of knockback on a ST 10 target. He throws a reduced knockback attack, dealing 16 damage instead, but also causing only half the normal knockback (1 yard instead of 2), keeping you in range of his following attack. Think of it as adding a lesser version of No Knockback to your melee attacks.

This does bring up another way to mitigate knockback - Imbuements. It feels strange to spend FP to remove a "feature" of an attack, but it's certainly possible to do it that way.

You say that it should be possible to reduce knockback by striking downward, etc...then you mentioned "No Knockback" so I thought I'd look it up in Powers. "No Knockback" is not an available option for Crushing Innate Attacks...which seems to imply that one can't really avoid the knockback with those sorts of attacks. No Knockback is available for cutting attacks, but only for "Tiny shards that damage mainly as a result of their sharpness have No Blunt Trauma (-20%) and No Knockback (-10%)"--which doesn't seem to apply to massive honking swords.

It seems to me if you are doing so much damage to so much smaller targets while rapid striking or Extra Attacking, you should probably reduce the strength behind your attack so you don't do that much knockback in the first place. It only seems fair. Because let's be fair here: You do 20hp of Damage to that ST10 person? They are already having to roll: 1 vs. HT to avoid Knockdown/Stunning due to Major Wound, 2 vs HT to avoid Unconsciousness, 3 vs. HT to avoid Death, and 4 vs DX/Acrobatics/Judo-2 to avoid falling down. Your foe is already in really, really bad shape.

If if really bothers you, then make your first attack vs. an Arm or Leg. Blowthrough when you cripple the limb will mean your foe won't be blown out of your reach.

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I feel if a successful Dodge + Retreat on the defender's part doesn't automatically cancel all of the attacker's additional attacks in the same turn, there's no reason that Knockback would put the defender out of reach. Assess the effects of knockback AFTER the attack resolves all the attacks.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This. Whatever the literal reading of knockback rules is, in my games, I'd allow doing all the attacks first and applying all knockback later. After all, even a speedster with Basic Move 500 cannot Retreat fast enough to avoid having to roll Dodge against attacks after the first (and second, and third), so a knockback effect that likely has a lower speed shouldn't either.

A voluntary controlled movement based on reaction time is very different from being hurled by a blow.

After writing that first sentence, I started checking my books for backup MA pg 109 while discussing Combinations, a reference to Knockback vs retreat is made...

"The target may retreat after any element of the Combination, gaining a bonus to his active defenses against that attack and all that follow. This is gradual movement – not a sudden lurch, like knockback – and doesn’t take him out of reach of the remaining attacks. Treat the distance between attacker and defender as constant unless the attacker steps or the defender suffers knockback, a throw, etc. If using tactical combat, move a retreating defender back a hex only after resolving the effects of the entire Combination."

While not explicit, this does seem to support my instinct on the matter.